But it wont be.
Putty is fine, but like Dara says, don't bust a nut in that.
You can't save everybody, just save yourself the trouble.
Future of the species? Cloning ftw.
But it wont be.
If you never have any, you won't miss them, because you can't miss what never existed.heydaralon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:27 pmAre children the ultimate sunk cost fallacy?
Who knows?
I just know that I ain't gonna let some ho squeeze me for cash at state gunpoint for 2 decades. Not happening.
That's pretty much how I feel about it.Smitty-48 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:29 pmIf you never have any, you won't miss them, because you can't miss what never existed.heydaralon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:27 pmAre children the ultimate sunk cost fallacy?
Who knows?
I just know that I ain't gonna let some ho squeeze me for cash at state gunpoint for 2 decades. Not happening.
You’ll find that most life forms care a great deal about the future of their children, without a Divine Directive.heydaralon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:24 pmYou are an atheist. Why the fuck is that important to you at all? If one species of millipede or trilobyte goes extinct, does that hit you in the feels?SuburbanFarmer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:17 pmFor one, it’s the ultimate biological imperative. It drives nearly all natural activity.heydaralon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:13 pmIts kind of weird that all the doom and gloom people on here who think that the world is going to be hellish in the next gen or so want to force another life into that tragedy. Like, did Anne Frank have an obligation to be pregnant in Treblinka just so that she could have her family line continued? If you think the world is going to shit and we are in a hopeless situation and soon to be living Cormac McCarthy's the Road or Gulag Archipeligo 2.0 or whatever, I don't see the logic in inviting another person to the party. Not saying I have a crystal ball, or any good answers to these big questions, but its kind of selfish in a way.
For another, it’s the people that want kids who are most concerned about the future. People without them have no reason to care what happens later.
There’s an argument that without this concern for the future generations, we would have imploded as a species many centuries ago.
You think our economy is going to collapse and that we will all be corporate slaves living impoverished lives of misery. If you were living on a plantation as a slave in Lynchburg in 1800, would you feel that it is in the best interest of you and your future offspring to procreate?
Again, I don't have a definite answer to this, but most people on here including me are pessimistic about the future, but we have children. Maybe the future would be waay better if less people did so, because then the future society would have less people fighting over resources. Hell, less traffic is an argument unto itself.
Unless you really have a desire to have them, you shouldn't have them, having kids out of a sense of duty or posterity, just ends up with unwanted kids.heydaralon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:33 pmThat's pretty much how I feel about it.Smitty-48 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:29 pmIf you never have any, you won't miss them, because you can't miss what never existed.heydaralon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:27 pmAre children the ultimate sunk cost fallacy?
Who knows?
I just know that I ain't gonna let some ho squeeze me for cash at state gunpoint for 2 decades. Not happening.
What is your point?SuburbanFarmer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:35 pmYou’ll find that most life forms care a great deal about the future of their children, without a Divine Directive.heydaralon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:24 pmYou are an atheist. Why the fuck is that important to you at all? If one species of millipede or trilobyte goes extinct, does that hit you in the feels?SuburbanFarmer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:17 pm
For one, it’s the ultimate biological imperative. It drives nearly all natural activity.
For another, it’s the people that want kids who are most concerned about the future. People without them have no reason to care what happens later.
There’s an argument that without this concern for the future generations, we would have imploded as a species many centuries ago.
You think our economy is going to collapse and that we will all be corporate slaves living impoverished lives of misery. If you were living on a plantation as a slave in Lynchburg in 1800, would you feel that it is in the best interest of you and your future offspring to procreate?
Again, I don't have a definite answer to this, but most people on here including me are pessimistic about the future, but we have children. Maybe the future would be waay better if less people did so, because then the future society would have less people fighting over resources. Hell, less traffic is an argument unto itself.
Grumpy is just trying to rationalize being in the trap of a woman and the state, having him by the balls.